12:17:34	 From Freitas, Ayres : Christophe, I had two more questions:
1) SMEFT vs. HEFT: this would be serious question for an actual data analysis, but when we are comparing colliders and the broad physics questions to be learned, it seems to me that SMEFT is general enough. Would you agree?
2) You argued that 4-quark operators can be neglected, but what about qqll operators, which one can probe in Drell-Yan?
12:29:20	 From Christophe Grojean : Hi Ayres, 1) well, it depends of the nature of new physics. SMEFT fit would be inadequate to capture and constrain models with new heavy particles acquiring a good fraction of their mass from the Higgs VEV. These scenarios are contrived, true, but still phenomenologically viable. The problem is that in HEFT, a global is more cumbersome since there are for instance fewer correlations between Higgs data and EW channels. About 2), that’s the point, qqll operators will be constrained elsewhere and don’t need to be included in the Higgs+EW+VV global fit, i.e., the measurements are de-correlated enough that a global fit is not needed. The story is different when the 4F operators involved tops.
12:35:11	 From Aram Apyan : Hi Christophe, one more question related to unitarity/validity of EFT in VBS we just discussed. If we want to compare the sensitivity for few operators for two different  colliders (let's say muon 10 TeV collider vs 100 TeV hadron collider), we would need to consider the EFT validity for fair comparison. I guess one way to do this is to to consider the sensitivity as a function of a cutoff on the diboson mass, etc. for each collider option. Would you agree?